Posted on 07/23/2012 6:17:40 PM PDT by markomalley
Two coal companies in Pennsylvania blamed President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the layoffs announced last week.
“[T]he escalating costs and uncertainty generated by recently advanced EPA regulations and interpretations have created a challenging business climate for the entire coal industry,” said PBS Coals Inc. President and CEO D. Lynn Shanks in a statement on Friday, as noted by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The company also cited weaker-than-normal demand for coal.
Shanks’ comment on the EPA came as he announced a 28 percent work force reduction. “PBS Coals Inc. and its affiliate company, RoxCoal Inc., laid off about 225 workers as part of an immediate idling of some deep and surface mines in Somerset County,” Post-Gazette added. “The company now employs 795 workers.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee staff issued a report last week faulting the EPA for over-regulating the industries under its control. “Over 40 EPA regulations cited by job creators as barriers to growth and expansion in the Committee’s February 2011 staff report remain a problem,” the staff report said. “EPA’s proposal to regulate coal combustion residuals (“coal ash”) usurps states’ previous role and exerts unprecedented federal control over the utility industry . . . Compliance costs range from $78-110 billion over the next 20 years while job loss estimates range from 39,000, under a low estimate, to 316,000, under a high estimate.”
General Manager Ronald Koontz, a mine manager, hit the president for waging a “war on coal seeking to destroy the coal industry and the jobs of our own employees and the livelihoods of their families.”
Koontz’ remark dovetails with those of EPA’s New England Regional Administrator Curt Spaulding, who said the EPA had adopted a policy towards the coal industry that amounted to saying “we just think those communities should just go away,” as he put it earlier this year.
“You can’t imagine how tough that was, because — you got to remember — if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal,” Spaulding said. “It is painful every step of the way.”
Every election is always about the economy - your wallet, jobs, etc. When the voters take their eye off that ball you get a Carter, Clinton and Obama. Not to overlook the foibles of GOP Presidents.
It’s the economy stupid.
I recently heard a black guest on a radio show state that it was racism keeping blacks down. I suppose he’s not aware that urban blacks elect Democrats in droves and keep them in power. IL is controlled top to bottom by Democrats. Who’s to blame, though?
IIRC OB made a statement during the 2008 campaign that he would put coal companies out of business. Anyone have this quote?
Nov 02, 2008 (clarification given to San Francisco Chronicle regarding previous Jan 2008 interview)
OBAMA: What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It’s just that it will bankrupt them.
“Obama told us he intended to get rid of the coal companies before he was elected president. And still they voted for him.”
That is correct! He also is on record saying that his objective is to eliminate the private health insurance industry - parroting other leftists like the abysmal Jan Schakowsky and the despicable toad Barney Frank.
thanx
well, if there was a pro-business candidate who was pro-abortion and the opposite was an anti-business candidate who was anti-abortion, I would vote for the anti. For me the issue of baby-killing takes precedence over my job (I’ll admit, i’ve never been in the situation and what I stated is what I believe I would do)
My point is that the vast majority of the electorate is consistent with God's advice in the Ten Commandments. That is they are jealous, envious, weak, etc. They worship a god of their own making. Realpolitik needs to address the economic concerns of the population.
A winning economic policy is an entre into a social policy consistent with conservative goals, although I don't think we'll ever see a full out ban on abortions. On a full belly the American people will move strongly toward the Constitution. We need to get the incentives right.
” Most people wouldn’t starve or lose their job and possessions over an unknown, unborn baby.”
If you look at things on a macro level, the loss of 55+ million babies over the past 40 years has had a tremendous impact on our society.
For example:
When larger families were the norm rather than the exception, as is the case in this post Griswold, post Roe world, the care of the elderly could relatively easily be accomplished by the elderly people’s adult children. Now, rather than the expenses, both in time and in dollars, must be borne by one or two kids. That’s a whole lot different.
The cultural attitude from parents to children also has changed. Again, with fewer kids, parents are free to obsess over their one or two offspring. All of their dreams and hopes are embodied in that kid. What happens? The kid is materially spoiled and never has to share with anybody...the kid is pressured to be perfect...constant structured activity leading to obsessiveness. The kid must be a success because otherwise the parent is a failure. No second, third, our fourth chance to get it right.
And then we can look at the loss of bodies for the labor pool. We don’t have enough people, and those that we have are self serving as a norm. The result: we import aliens to do the shut work for slave wages.
While the loss of one child to abortion may not have a huge impact on society, if you look at it on the macro scale, that has done more to ruin our society than anything else. And yes, I would include, in many cases, jobs and possessions
” Most people wouldn’t starve or lose their job and possessions over an unknown, unborn baby.”
If you look at things on a macro level, the loss of 55+ million babies over the past 40 years has had a tremendous impact on our society.
For example:
When larger families were the norm rather than the exception, as is the case in this post Griswold, post Roe world, the care of the elderly could relatively easily be accomplished by the elderly people’s adult children. Now, rather than the expenses, both in time and in dollars, must be borne by one or two kids. That’s a whole lot different.
The cultural attitude from parents to children also has changed. Again, with fewer kids, parents are free to obsess over their one or two offspring. All of their dreams and hopes are embodied in that kid. What happens? The kid is materially spoiled and never has to share with anybody...the kid is pressured to be perfect...constant structured activity leading to obsessiveness. The kid must be a success because otherwise the parent is a failure. No second, third, our fourth chance to get it right.
And then we can look at the loss of bodies for the labor pool. We don’t have enough people, and those that we have are self serving as a norm. The result: we import aliens to do the shut work for slave wages.
While the loss of one child to abortion may not have a huge impact on society, if you look at it on the macro scale, that has done more to ruin our society than anything else. And yes, I would include, in many cases, jobs and possessions
I'd like to believe I'd sacrifice all of that for my moral stand against baby-killing, but I've not been put in that position to say that "that's what I did".
Good analysis and we agree. We’re on the same team as regards abortion. My only point is the shortsightedness and low self-esteem of the average voter limits the ability of conservative candidates to win on socially conservative issues alone. We’re too easily painted as extreme and our ideas marginalized.
On the other-hand imagine if the three of us ran on a pro-growth, pro-jobs platform. That could be a winning ticket even in many Dem areas. Now we implement our policies and get growth going again along with jobs.
The voter, seeing the pocketbook issue being addressed, is now grateful. Over time we would then be able to implement socially conservative initiatives over time. Those same initiatives would improve pocketbook issues by reforming welfare, strengthening families and reducing out of wedlock births. This would all act to keep conservatives in power for generations.
We tend to be too all or nothing. I live in a heavily Democratic area. I work hard to get a little bit each time using moral suasion and publicity to move the conservative agenda forward. I never get everything, but in bits and pieces I’ve succeeded greatly.
As for abortion I don’t believe that God would allow those innocents to suffer the crimes of their parents. So despite my disgust for abortion, I believe that long term we can only hope to ban late term abortions and reduce the number by implementing adoption reforms. People throughout history have always had abortions. That’s not a rationalization for an evil, just the reality of this world. Remember that the god of this world is the Devil.
True. But I couldn't get myself to vote for a pro-abortion person, no matter what. I can hold my nose and vote for someone who doesn't say anything about it...
Realistically speaking you are somewhat correct. I live in Poland and there is an utter ban on abortion except for: 1. affecting Mother's health, 2. Rape, 3. Fetal defects
For 1 I will not argue - that's a mother's choice, I cannot speak against a person's option to live. Those who risk their own lives for their child, I honor them as incredibly brave.
For 2 I believe it hurts the rape victim twice to have the knowledge of a death on their hands. Adoption rather than abortion is the norm. This should be banned
For 3 I sympathize with the parents on this.
I am firmly of the opinion that public money should not be spent on this -- it ties us all in to baby killing.
I am against public money being spent on this baby killing because it makes me (through my taxes) a part of it. I am also against us trivialising it via the media. If a person wants to kill their baby, let it be on their heads. They should know what they are doing. If, after that, they choose to do what they want to do, then it is their REAL choice
The voter, seeing the pocketbook issue being addressed, is now grateful. Over time we would then be able to implement socially conservative initiatives over time. Those same initiatives would improve pocketbook issues by reforming welfare, strengthening families and reducing out of wedlock births. This would all act to keep conservatives in power for generations.
That sounds like the same strategy Mitt Romney used to win the gubernatorial election in MA. According to this piece, relying upon reports in the book, Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics, we see:
According to Scott, Romney revealed that polling from Richard Wirthlin, Ronald Reagan's former pollster whom Romney had hired for the '94 campaign, showed it would be impossible for a pro-life candidate to win statewide office in Massachusetts. In light of that, Romney decided to run as a pro-choice candidate, pledging to support Roe v. Wade, while remaining personally pro-life.
Now we look at him and we see a claim that he changed his views to pro-life, but, yet, we have ABSOLUTELY ZERO track record to support that his conversion is anything but mere words. He did absolutely NOTHING to even remotely ramp back abortion in Massachusetts during his time in office. NOTHING. NADA.
We could assume that he took on a liberal attitude about homosexuality for the purpose of getting elected, while remaining personally against homosexuality. Well, again, his track record is very, very clear. He actually advanced the cause of homosexuality while in office. But his words now, running for national office, indicate that he has a moderately pro-family position.
So which shade is the actual Mitt Romney? The words he uses now or the actions he took when in office? (It should be noted that there are no actual actions following any so-called conversion to indicate that it was an actual conversion)
And what about Massachusetts? Was he able to culturally move Massachusetts to the right at all? Or did Massachusetts move him to the left?
The point is that if a candidate compromises his/her views on an issue as fundamental as "life", that candidate turns into a chameleon who is willing to do anything for political expediency. Untrustworthy.
I think Cronos has the basic "key" here:
But I couldn't get myself to vote for a pro-abortion person, no matter what. I can hold my nose and vote for someone who doesn't say anything about it...
The point is that, sure, in a heavily left-wing area (I hesitate to call it "liberal", particularly in light of the fascist actions of the pink/lavender mafia in recent years), I could see putting a strong emphasis on pocketbook issues rather than social conservative issues, but that is radically different than denying the moral stand on those issues for political expediency.
I, frankly, can not count the number of "personally pro-life" Catholics (CINOs) who are "personally opposed" to abortion while voting for the most radical pro-abortion / pro-infanticide measures ever. There is simply no way I will ever support any permutation of that kind of attitude, no matter the party of the candidate.
You, 1010RD, say:
I live in a heavily Democratic area. I work hard to get a little bit each time using moral suasion and publicity to move the conservative agenda forward. I never get everything, but in bits and pieces I’ve succeeded greatly.
This is the other big point to restoring our civilization to a somewhat moral position. We need to move the agenda forward a bit-by-bit. Recapture ground we've lost over the past century. Retake land we've ceded to the enemy.
In the past 100 years or so, far too many of us conservatives have utterly abandoned our responsibility to society and have allowed liberals to utterly fill the void. The majority of public opinion is not shaped by we conservatives, it is shaped by left wingers.
Public opinion has shifted to the left dramatically since the time of the original progressives back at the turn of the 20th century. The only way to gain a long-term victory in this war is to stop the left-wing propagandizing of society, particularly our youth. We may, when the left goes too far and puts a radical like Øbama in office too early, be able to take back some ground for a short time because he's so far left as to shock even most left-wingers...but those victories will be short-lived. (Remember the the little ditty: two steps forward, one step back???)
But you don't get that by becoming a chameleon. And while emphasizing the economic leg of conservatism over the national defense leg or the moral leg is understandable in a heavily left wing area, denying one of the other legs of the conservative triad is not the way to do anything but become compromised.
I am surprised that the Republicans are not running this add at least once an hour on every news outlet in WV, PA and OH.
They still blame Bush and the Republicans. There is no hope for these people. They are a lost cause. obama and the Democrats continue to piss on their heads and tell them that it is rain and they believehem.
Two reasons:
1.) THEY ARE INCOMPETENT
2.) They don’t really want a conservative to win.
Reading over both of your comments I believe we’re all in agreement. My point is that because of Leftist indoctrination even moderates have to be educated back to reality. That’s happening as regards guns and abortion already. In America we’re winning those two fights, although I don’t think you’ll see a all out ban on abortion.
My point was “if the three of us” or someone who is a real conservative. I wouldn’t lie if asked, but I would work the pocketbook issues in a liberal area, not social issues. We need to take and hold Congress for a generation plus. We need to get more Thomases on the SCOTUS - I’d like to see two more just like him for a solid conservative Court.
But, more than that, we have to prove we can govern. We act like kids in a candy store and try to get it all done at once. Instead if we focus on the choke points of government and think incrementally we’ll win. I hear purists attack school vouchers as just more government, but we’re not going to get there from here in one leap. That was my only point. Good talking with both of you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.